Marriage Equality Opinion Feedback Loop
Thinking about the seemingly rapid advances the once-toxic cause of marriage equality is making in public opinion polls illustrates, I think, the fact that not only do politicians take cues from public opinion, but the public takes cues from politicians.
In this particular case, it’s been clear for a few years now that the trend in public opinion was ineradicably moving in the direction of equality. That’s encouraged a lot of the more far-sighted political elites to start moving in a more gay-friendly position. You see this especially among conservatives where for the past few years supporting civil unions or full marriage equality has been the method of choice for demonstrating reasonableness. And I think that elites shifting to more gay-friendly positions has a substantial impact on the large number of Americans who I think are basically fair-minded but who, being of a certain age, just found the idea of same-sex marriage initially too shocking to contemplate.
Meanwhile, as more and more jurisdictions have permitted marriage or civil unions, the sky keeps not falling. And all that only further accelerates the trend.
28 Responses to “Marriage Equality Opinion Feedback Loop”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 30th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I agree. It’s pretty fantastic. I was born in 1961 and came out in 1995. Up until a few years ago, 2004, this would have been impossible to seriously contemplate. Pretty fantastic. But until this is sanctioned on a Federal level there will be many of us who will not feel safe. My partner was born outside of this country. We’ve been together for 12 years and have an adopted daughter, who is now five. My partner and I have been advised not to get married in order not to call attention to him and mess up his immigration status. Marriage ought not to carry that risk for sure!
April 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Another example of this phenomenon maybe is that a lot of people are big fans of torture who probably wouldn’t have supported it a few years ago.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Thinking about the seemingly rapid advances the once-toxic cause of marriage equality
You mean the cause of genderless marriage? Because that is ultimately what this is about, is about saying that gender is not a relevant factor in marriage.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Rephrase:
You mean the cause of genderless marriage? Because that is ultimately what this is about; it is about saying that gender is not a relevant factor in marriage.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Hello everyone,
I, the MORAL PANICKER try to make important distinctions between the excesses of the right and left by arguing indirectly that people have the right to participate in a status quo that reflects the order found in nature, as opposed to the rigid exploitation of the right or the pointless egalitarianism (which is different from equality- egalitarianism celebrates inequality to advance the cause of those who are not treated with equality) but at times I have made statements that are not accurate. In particular, to be honest, the long thread about Byron York (Racial prejudice: bad. Politically correct assumptions that encourage senses of entitlement based on oppressed or at least under-represented identity: Not really bad) and so forth in which I participated today made me more aware of something that I have long known: that blog comments leave so much room for mistakes while leaving so little room for elaboration, that many people are not interested in seeing what they believe that unites them as opposed to dividing them. This does not have anything to do with the topic at hand, but it has everything to do with this genre where people make mistakes but where it is especially hard to meet them. I wish you all luck in your blog-commenting fun. I have every intention of participating, but not in the flame-war style.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
For example, I will comment on Matthew’s main-point about some sort of vanguard leading the way on the issue of gay marriage. I think he is right about something. That a certain kinf of person does not want to assume that so many people who find themselves at the top are wrong or do not want to seem out-of-synch with a consensus opinion, so agree with issues they would not have in the past.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
For you see, I don’t want to think of myself as stupid and I do not think of myself as stupid, but in terms of blog comments I am so far from where I would like to be that it’s really annoying for me.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Hugh:
I’m sort of in the same situation you are — i.e., I have a long-term partner on a work visa and would like to get married, for symbolism if nothing else. I’m wondering who told you to not get married in order to avoid screwing up your partner’s immigration status. I haven’t heard anything like that, though I haven’t really looked into the matter. Was it a lawyer? How would it screw up his immigration status? Thanks.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Somebody’s been hitting the bottle.
Anyway, I’m an atheist. Gay rights is so 2007. Most people would rather vote for Hitler than atheists like me. That’s where the real civil rights action is.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
This is exactly the sort of “come on in, the water is fine” moment that the Christianist oppressive Right has been panicking about.
But, as Massachusetts has shown us, and CA (temporarily) and VT and Iowa and several European countries have shown us, nothing bad happens when teh gays marry. Nothing. Bad. Happens.
And soon everyone who is not a 21% GOP wingnut calms down and goes about her or his business.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Re: You see this especially among conservatives where for the past few years supporting civil unions or full marriage equality has been the method of choice for demonstrating reasonableness
Um, what (non-gay) conseravtives openly support gay marriage? Even finding conservatives who will say in a straight forward manner, and without equivocation, that they are for civil unions is hard to do.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
moral panicker pls start talking to real non-internet human beings again or you will go crazy kthx
April 30th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
It is a foundational belief of conservatives that male homosexuality weakens the nation. A prima facie existential threat. Yet this rapid unraveling of the taboo has not elicited any heat, that I have seen from the rabid right? What gives?
April 30th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
@13: I think maybe we’re discovering it wasn’t really all that foundational.
I’ll be damned if I know *what* the foundational beliefs of the right are these days. Sometimes it seems to be an extension of 17c. theocracy, sometimes it just seems to be a reaction against campus politics in the 60s.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
As a Masshole, I have been sure to tell my friends and family down South about the great gay weddings I’ve attended, show pictures, etc. I think when gay marriage isn’t some freak show but some nice people’s nice kids who have friends and jobs and a fabulous fashion sense, it changes.
I got married in Vermont (no waiting period) and when I called to make the arrangements I was asked if it was a gay or straight union. It was right after civil unions there. You should have seen the jaws drop in my very Catholic family when we told the story. There was a good bit of shock. But a few years later when we showed pictures of Bob and Steve with the afghan I made as a wedding present, they just cooed at how cute a couple they were.
Once you get your mind around it, it does make sense.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
MY GOD is Rose terrible!!! What poor defense! My, how prescient his detractors look now!!!
April 30th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I think that’s becoming true, but it wasn’t always. It used to be that every time there was a victory for gay rights there was a noticeable if not huge backlash in public opinion.
Something fundamental has shifted. I don’t know what, but it is fascinating and unfamiliar territory.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
And I think that elites shifting to more gay-friendly positions has a substantial impact on the large number of Americans who I think are basically fair-minded but who, being of a certain age, just found the idea of same-sex marriage initially too shocking to contemplate.
I despise the word “elites” — it’s obnoxious used either pejoratively or descriptively. And I think it’s wrong to see the change in public opinion as people taking cues from so-called “elites.” I suspect this is a result of the general reaction of moderates and independents against Republicanism. The more the most vocal opponents of marriage equality are perceived as the close minded nuts they are, the less respectable, fair minded people want to be associated with them. Similarly, the less support for marriage equality is perceived to be limited to Hollywood, liberal “elites” and hippies, the more comfortable people are joining in. I’ve come to believe that the positions people take on political issues usually have less to do with arguments on the merits of the issue but rather with how people identify themselves. Politics is a team sport. People identify with a particular political team for largely aesthetic, ethnic or cultural reasons and them adopt the political views of their team. The destruction of the Republican brand has caused people to switch teams, or at least to abandon the Republican team. Without the team affiliation, there’s no good reason for them to oppose marriage equality. At the same time, as more gay “regular people” come out openly and as more gay couples get married and demonstrate that gay marriage is just as normal as straight marriage, marriage equality seems less part of the radical liberal team outlook and folks get comforable seeing themselves as the kind of people that support gay marriage.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Here’s hoping the justices on the California Supreme Court takes into account what’s going on in the rest of the country and strike down Prop. 8. The early signs after oral argument were not encouraging.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am
@13 rapier: “Yet this rapid unraveling of the taboo has not elicited any heat, that I have seen from the rabid right? What gives?”
I think they realize they can’t win. Like Democrats with gun legislation, they are saving ammo for other fights.
Plus, the Right needs to shift the debate. Reliance on the Old Testament to support their anti-gay agenda is proving increasingly problematical if not destructive. Held up to objective, open discussion, the Old Testament is incredibly damaging to the Right’s cause. They have to defend the lunacy contained in so many verses, especially in Leviticus.
If their anti-gay position is based on Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination,” they have to explain why they ignore, for instance, Leviticus 20:9, “For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
There are literally hundreds of verses in the Old Testament the Right does not want held up to scrutiny. I think the Right and the Fundamentalists have decided to avoid debilitating tactical battles and instead focus on a generic Grand Strategy of defending Creationism and Jesus/God against the evil forces of Science and Atheism.
Plus, they need the votes.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:44 am
As much as I’d like the outcome that Joe C wants, the CA case has to be decided on its merits (or lack thereof).
I think it will be much more powerful to have the reversal amendment on the CA ballot in two or 4 years and have it roar to victory in a popular election.
It’ll shut the conservatives up firmly. No “judicial activism” BS for 20 years thereafter. I think Andrew Sullivan is correct in his assertions that the marriage movement needs to focus on legislative wins. I think the VT passage was in some ways far more significant that IA — it was a straight-up vote by the elected representatives.
With the polling emerging in the past few days, the case can soon be made to take it to the CA voters as early as 2010.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:42 am
Regarding TED”S comment 14
I agree. I do not think they realy have a philosophy in the republican party nowdays.You saw this during the election , when they would throw a charge at Obama [ he's too inntelectual and mild mannered!!], and when it would not stick, they would throw an opposite claim [ he's too angry and radical!!!]
It was never consistent and it seemed they were throwing mud to see what stuck.This always happens during elections .But this year was much worse than usual because the republicans were in a panic.
I think that the republicans realise that their anti – gay tirades win them no votes.Yes, there will still be homophobia from the right.But i think half of them did not believe their own b.s. .
Unfourtantly i think they still are in a panic. So when the ” SOCIALISM” charge does not work, who knows, they might fall back on homophobia again. Let us hope not.
By the way why in the hell is Maryland , a so called ” blue state” , so behind on this issue.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:54 am
Regarding MAX424 ’s comment 20
MR MAX , I believe we might have disagreed in the past, but i would say that you are spot on with your observation in comment 20.
I would urge anybody who is a Christain ,like myself , to not be afraid to debate anybody who is useing the Bible to promote homophobia.I believe the facts are on our side.
I respect all peoples beliefs, but I do not appreciate people taking a Book of love , and trying to turn it into a Book of hate!
And for those who are atheists. I respect your beliefs, but please do not rise to the right wings bait. They stress the Bible because they know that some people will have a knee jerk reaction and will insult Christianity. This is a trap. And you should avoid it at all costs.The right wingers want you to alianate Christains like myself. Please do not fall for it!
May 1st, 2009 at 8:14 am
I think Led @ 18 nailed the phenomenon at issue here:
This reasoning would particularly apply to cultural issues like gay marriage. It’s not going to apply as strongly to, say, ag subsidies or the capital gains tax — where durable economic interests are at stake.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am
How long will it be until we see conservatives complaining about the mean ol’ liberals using gay marriage as a wedge issue?
May 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
There is well documented homosexuality in Nature among various species besides ours and these non-human individuals are not forced to hide, stigmatized, hunted down or pecked to death. So anyone who touts the “Against Nature” argument forgot to look at Nature. Of course, it is always hard to see anything when you have a big old book blinding your vision. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was considered normal in society and in the military and they defeated a much larger Persian invasion. Not quite the sissy boys some people imagine. The bottom line is that for reasons known only to Nature and/or God, we have homosexuals in our midst, real people who are our siblings, our children, our parents and our friends. Homosexuals are not sub-human and they deserve what America promises – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That necessarily includes the right to marry. Sign me the proud birth mother of a Lesbian daughter who hopes she’s found the right woman and would love to dance at their wedding some day.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Blago,
My partner met with an immigration advocate in an agency here in NYC. This was during Bush’s (W’s) term. The advocate said that the risk is not that there would be an official response but that calling attention to my partner’s status without legal imperatives and guidelines immigration employees are mandated to follow made him vulnerable to bad acts. This may have changed since the election. I prefer not to take the risk. Best to wait until there are legal guidelines telling immigration employees exactly what to do.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“You mean the cause of genderless marriage? Because that is ultimately what this is about; it is about saying that gender is not a relevant factor in marriage.”
GASP!!!! OH NO!!
Or rather: yes, what you are saying is exactly right. There are lots of legal matters in which gender is not supposed to be a relevant factor. For example: all of them.